So, I am not anywhere near a lawyer or any type of legal training. But was Christie full of bullshit

[nikibatts]

today on MSNBC? He seemed to be twisting himself and the law into a pretzel over "conspiracy or no conspiracy" "collusion or no collusion" "crime or no crime." If there are lawyers out there please set me straight.

First, I remember when Comey told Congress the reason he did not pursue charges against HRC was because there was no "intent" to release classified information. Stick a pin in it here.

Now Christie's argument seems to be that the meeting between Jr. and the Russians with Kushner and Manfort also present presented no conspiracy or collusion since we don't know what actually happened or what if anything was given to Jr. and those present. If you saw the Christie interview, you know what I am talking about. If not, stream it.

Ok. i maintain that we do know exactly what the INTENT of the meeting was because it is clearly spelled out in the e-mails to Jr. and Jr's reaction..."I love it." Also, since the e-mails were sent to Kushner and Manafort prior to the meeting, I maintain that there is even intent to collude. Jr. invited them to the meeting for the same reasons he went. They all intended to collude re negative information concerning HRC. They intended to collude and that was the conspiracy.

Ok. so tell me where I am wrong.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. You seem to have missed the key point of Christie's legal point

I

O

K

I

Y

A

R

[Moostache]

2. THIS, sadly too true (n/t)

[elleng]

3. We don't 'know,' that is, have evidence about any important elements:

'Intent,' 'Collude,' 'Conspire,' all critical elements to determine whether charges of any kind appropriate. (MAY have a bit, on 'intent.') Conspiracy more likely to result in charges than collude.

[Mr. Ected]

4. It doesn't matter that Christie is/was an attorney - he knows as much as we do

His opinion is circumscribed by the evidence that we have on the table, which is limited, fractured and incomplete. There are Congressmen and Senators who know a lot more than we do. Bob Mueller is probably sitting on a mountain of evidence, with more coming in every day as he sics his attack dogs on every lead that he is given.

But until all the facts are bound together, corroborated and proven in a court of law, no one's opinion is worth a shit.

And you know whose opinions are the most worthless of all? The perps. Trump, Trump, Jr., Tiara Trump, Kushner, Manafort, Flynn, Page, et al. And yet their opinions are the ones trumpeted by the media.

[OnDoutside]

5. I'd say he knows lots more, but isn't as stupid as the others

To get implicated.

[marylandblue]

6. He is arguing like a defense attorney

trying to create uncertainty in the jurors' mind. He is focusing on the things we aren't certain about, like whether there was a folder at the meeting to distract you from what we do know about, which is clearly written in Jr.'s email.